Adam D Jakes1, Perrine Marec-Berard2, Robert S Phillips3, Daniel P Stark1. 1. Leeds Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust , Leeds, United Kingdom . 2. Institut d'Hématologie et d'Oncologie Pédiatrie (IHOP) , Lyon, France . 3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York , York, United Kingdom .
Abstract
Purpose: The 5-year survival of teenagers and young adults (TYAs; 13-24 years old) with cancer has continued to rise, but as a result more patients experience late effects of treatment, such as infertility. Advice regarding fertility preservation in relation to cancer is provided in numerous clinical practice guidelines, but the rigor of their development is unclear. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken for clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in TYAs with cancer. All guidelines were reviewed according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) criteria. Five out of 13 identified guidelines scored over 75% in the "rigor of development" section and were further appraised. Content, scope, and consistencies between recommendations were also examined. Results: All five of the reviewed guidelines encouraged oncologists to have discussions with their patients about potential fertility issues associated with treatment and available fertility preservation methods. The cryopreservation of sperm, oocytes, and embryos were all recommended as first-line interventions in postpubertal patients. Recommendations surrounding pre- or peripubescent adolescents were few, with many techniques only recommended as part of a clinical trial. The risk of subfertility associated with different treatment regimens was poorly described. Conclusions: The methodology and development of guidelines describing fertility preservation in TYA cancer patients varied greatly. Methodological quality did not clearly influence key recommendations. Those involved with the development of guidelines are encouraged to clearly define their development methods to allow users to be confident of the quality.
Purpose: The 5-year survival of teenagers and young adults (TYAs; 13-24 years old) with cancer has continued to rise, but as a result more patients experience late effects of treatment, such as infertility. Advice regarding fertility preservation in relation to cancer is provided in numerous clinical practice guidelines, but the rigor of their development is unclear. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken for clinical practice guidelines regarding fertility preservation in TYAs with cancer. All guidelines were reviewed according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) criteria. Five out of 13 identified guidelines scored over 75% in the "rigor of development" section and were further appraised. Content, scope, and consistencies between recommendations were also examined. Results: All five of the reviewed guidelines encouraged oncologists to have discussions with their patients about potential fertility issues associated with treatment and available fertility preservation methods. The cryopreservation of sperm, oocytes, and embryos were all recommended as first-line interventions in postpubertal patients. Recommendations surrounding pre- or peripubescent adolescents were few, with many techniques only recommended as part of a clinical trial. The risk of subfertility associated with different treatment regimens was poorly described. Conclusions: The methodology and development of guidelines describing fertility preservation in TYA cancerpatients varied greatly. Methodological quality did not clearly influence key recommendations. Those involved with the development of guidelines are encouraged to clearly define their development methods to allow users to be confident of the quality.
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Michelle E Kho; George P Browman; Jako S Burgers; Francoise Cluzeau; Gene Feder; Béatrice Fervers; Ian D Graham; Jeremy Grimshaw; Steven E Hanna; Peter Littlejohns; Julie Makarski; Louise Zitzelsberger Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: J Donnez; M M Dolmans; D Demylle; P Jadoul; C Pirard; J Squifflet; B Martinez-Madrid; A van Langendonckt Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 16-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christine Wyns; Mara Curaba; Bernard Vanabelle; Anne Van Langendonckt; Jacques Donnez Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Sander Greenland; Mark A Hlatky; Muin J Khoury; Malcolm R Macleod; David Moher; Kenneth F Schulz; Robert Tibshirani Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil; Clement K Gwede; Cheryl Miree; Lindsey M King; Heather B Clayton; Crystal Wilson; Pamela Munster Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Jessica E Morgan; Hadeel Hassan; Julia V Cockle; Christopher Lethaby; Beki James; Robert S Phillips Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-09-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Myra Schleedoorn; Janielle van der Velden; Didi Braat; Ina Beerendonk; Ron van Golde; Ron Peek; Kathrin Fleischer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.692